Americans Deserve American Laws

About the Author

When a Supreme Court justice decides a case, should he or she
look exclusively to the Constitution and U.S. laws? Or should
foreign policies or laws come into play?

Those are easy questions for most Americans. They know U.S.
citizens are subject only to laws made by American legislators --
not foreigners at the United Nations, in Europe or in Zimbabwe.

Yet at least one sitting Supreme Court justice says American
jurists should look to foreign precedent. And President Barack
Obama's first nominee to sit on the high court, Sonia Sotomayor,
seems a bit unclear on that point, too.

Just two years ago a book titled "The International Judge"
featured an introduction she penned. "The question of how much we
have to learn from foreign law and the international community when
interpreting our Constitution," she wrote, is "worth posing."

Earlier this year, Sotomayor spoke to the Puerto Rican chapter
of the ACLU. "International law and foreign law will be very
important in the discussion of how to think about the unsettled
issues in our own legal system," she told the group.

Both quotes are troubling. Quite simply, there's no need to
consider foreign law when interpreting American constitutional
law.

For the Constitution is, by definition, all one needs. And
despite its brevity, our Constitution is remarkably effective. As a
guiding legal framework, it works far better than longer (and
long-winded) documents such as the European Union constitution. Our
Constitution's protection of the freedom of speech, for example, is
remarkable, admirable and unique.

Unfortunately, Sotomayor isn't alone in her consideration of
foreign policies. Earlier this year Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
told a panel at Ohio State University that our Supreme Court ought
to pay more attention to the laws and policies of other countries.
"You will not be listened to if you don't listen to others," she
warned.

Well, what does it matter whether jurists in Yemen decide to
cite U.S. precedent?

Our founding document was written to create a United States. The
laws passed in the 221 years since it was ratified were meant to
govern Americans. Anyone who wants to live under Sudanese law is
free to move. Yet for more than two centuries, the line to get
into the U.S. has been far longer than the line to get
out. We're doing something right.

In a recent paper from The Heritage Foundation, international
law expert Steven Groves suggested several questions Sotomayor
ought to be asked during her hearings.

Do you believe that it is the proper role of a justice of the
Supreme Court to decide cases based on whether the decision will
influence the jurisprudence of foreign courts? If so, how great a
factor should the desire to influence foreign courts play in
interpreting the Constitution?

By what criteria should foreign decisions be cited? Should the
Court really be looking to adopt norms outside of the American
tradition when deciding cases regarding controversial "values"
issues such as the death penalty and homosexuality?

What exactly constitutes the mainstream of human thinking?
Since much of American constitutional jurisprudence falls outside
of the mainstream, why would we want to allow America's less
republican neighbors in the world community to influence the
Court's decisions?

Over the last several years, The Heritage Foundation has given
away more than 3 million copies of the U.S. Constitution, which
Supreme Court justices take an oath to defend and uphold.

Judge Sotomayor needs a friendly reminder that the Constitution
-- despite being small enough to slip inside a jacket pocket -- is
big enough to govern our continental nation. And her job, if the
full Senate approves her, would be to consult that document
for guidance, not foreign laws or policies.

Senators should press Sotomayor to explain her stance on the use
of foreign law -- and pay close attention to her answers.